Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE ADULTERER IS ALSO CHECKED

1. Suggestion: Perhaps the husband is punished if he transgressed (had relations with his wife after seclusion).
2. Rejection: If so, the water would not check her!

i. (Beraisa): "The man will be clean from sin, and she will bear her sin" - the water only checks her if her husband is clean from sin.

(b) Answer: Rather, the suspected adulterer is also checked.
(c) Question: Why didn't the Mishnah say this explicitly, as in the next clause - 'Just as she is forbidden to her husband, she is forbidden to the suspected adulterer'?
(d) Answer: In the beginning of the Mishnah, parallel to saying 'The water checks her', it says 'him'; in the next clause, parallel to saying 'She is forbidden to her husband', it says 'the suspected adulterer'.
(e) (Mishnah): It says, "And (the water) will come, and (it) will come".
(f) Question: Does the Tana expound only the superfluous 'And', or the superfluous 'and will come'?
(g) Answer #1 (Mishnah): Just as she is forbidden to her husband, she is forbidden to the suspected adulterer - "She was defiled; and she was defiled".
(h) Objection: There also, it is not clear - does the Tana expound the superfluous 'And', or the superfluous 'and she was defiled'?
(i) Answer #2 (Mishnah): Rebbi says, it says "She was defiled" twice; this teaches, she is forbidden to her husband and the suspected adulterer;

1. From this we infer that R. Akiva expounds the superfluous 'And'.

(j) It says 'And will come' 3 times - R. Akiva expounds superfluous 'and's, so he learn 6 things!

1. Hash-m commands the water to enter the Sotah to test her; also, he commands that it test him (the suspected adulterer);
2. The Torah speaks of giving the Sotah to drink - and it is as if he also drinks;
3. The Torah informs how she will die - this also applies to him.

(k) Question: (Rebbi does not expound superfluous 'and's,) he only learns 3 things - how does Rebbi learn that just as the water checks her, it also checks him?
(l) Answer: "To make the stomach swell and the thigh fall" - this refers to the stomach and thigh of the suspected adulterer.
(m) Question: Maybe it refers to the stomach and thigh of the Sotah?
(n) Answer: The Torah previously said that her stomach and thigh will be stricken.

1. R. Akiva says, the repetition is to make known the order in which the limbs will be stricken, lest people will not say that the water does not work as predicted in the curse.
2. Rebbi: If so, the Torah should have said 'her stomach and her thigh'; it said generically "stomach and thigh" to teach that the suspected adulterer is also tested.
3. Question: Perhaps this is all we may learn from the verse!
4. Answer: If so, the Torah should have said 'his stomach and his thigh'; it said generically "stomach and thigh" to teach both (that the suspected adulterer is also tested, and the order in which the limbs are stricken).

(a) (Mishnah): R. Yehoshua: Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav also expounded thusly ...
(b) (Beraisa - R. Akiva): Why does it say 3 times - "If she was defiled", "she was defiled", "she was defiled"? To teach that she becomes forbidden to her husband, the adulterer, and Terumah;

1. R. Yishmael: No verse is needed to show that she is forbidden to Kehunah - we may learn a Kal va'Chomer from Terumah!

i. A divorcee is permitted to eat Terumah, but is forbidden to Kehunah - a Sotah, who is forbidden to Terumah, all the more so she is forbidden to Kehunah!

(c) Question: Why does it say "She was defiled" and "she was not defiled"?

1. If she was defiled - why does she drink?
2. If she was not defiled - does her husband make her drink?

(d) Answer: The Torah teaches that even though we are in doubt, she is forbidden as if she was definitely defiled.

1. From here we learn to doubtful cases of Tum'ah, e.g. of a rodent.
2. Regarding a Sotah, the Torah does not forbid her if she sinned unknowingly or through force, only if she sinned knowingly and willingly - yet, a doubtful case is forbidden as if she was surely defiled;
3. Regarding a rodent, which imparts Tum'ah whether knowingly or unknowingly, whether willingly or unwillingly - all the more so, a doubtful case is forbidden as if it was surely Tamei!

4. The source of the Kal va'Chomer, Sotah, is a doubt in a private domain - we may only learn to doubtful cases of Tum'ah involving a rodent in a private domain.
5. Sotah, is a doubt in which an involved party has understanding - regarding a rodent, we may only learn to cases in which an involved party has understanding.

i. Chachamim derived from here: doubtful cases of Tum'ah in which an involved party has understanding - in a private domain, we rule that it is Tamei; in a public domain, we rule that it is Tahor;
ii. Doubtful cases of Tum'ah in which no involved party has understanding - whether in a private or a public domain, we rule that it is Tahor.

(a) Question #1: R. Akiva expounded a verse to teach that she is disqualified from Terumah - why did R. Yishmael answer that no verse is needed to teach that she is disqualified from Kehunah?
(b) Question #2: How does R. Akiva learn that she is disqualified from Kehunah?

1. Suggestion: No verse is needed - regarding her husband, the Torah considers her to definitely be a Zonah (adulteress) - also regarding Kehunah, she is considered a definite Zonah.